Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread

[RECarry]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:06 PM, mab22 said:

This looks like an endorsement, not a candidate statement or position?

 

Consider that the author, gun-hater and HP Mayor Nancy Rotering, fancies a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court. Impartiality would not survive.

[steveTA84]

 

Complaint filed against ILSC with the Illinois Judicial Board 

[ILgunguy]

All of the above is great research, but now I feel sick to my stomach that it is so blatant and still there is a hesitancy to recuse.   If not this, then what does it take?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 4/10/2023 at 6:42 PM, ILgunguy said:

All of the above is great research, but now I feel sick to my stomach that it is so blatant and still there is a hesitancy to recuse.   If not this, then what does it take?

 

Massive amounts of mainstream media pressure.  

[steveTA84]

On 4/10/2023 at 6:42 PM, ILgunguy said:

and still there is a hesitancy to recuse.   If not this, then what does it take?

If they don’t it sets up more problems for them. It would ALMOST be better if they didn’t and ruled in favor of the defendants, as it will show the court is in Pritzker’s pocket 

[Tip]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:15 PM, steveTA84 said:

If they don’t it sets up more problems for them. It would ALMOST be better if they didn’t and ruled in favor of the defendants, as it will show the court is in Pritzker’s pocket 

Or they could hear the case, follow the rule of law, and rule in favor of the plaintiffs….. then we’d get to watch JB have a coronary over it all….

[steveTA84]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:38 PM, Tip said:

Or they could hear the case, follow the rule of law, and rule in favor of the plaintiffs….. then we’d get to watch JB have a coronary over it all….

I’d like to be pleasantly surprised that they all do the right thing, but I’d wager against that happening. That said, I overall feel that the ILSC is in a “no-win” situation as it applies to the anti-gun justices. Any ruling upholding the ban, especially if no recusal, will be bashed hardcore and open doors for further action against Rochford and O’Brien (at the federal level even ).  The ILSC is tainted badly because of all this, so even if they recuse, it’ll still be viewed as the defendants influencing their party allies on the bench 

[mab22]

I thought if they don’t recuse, and they go with the state, that it sets up automatic SC review?

IF they do recuse that leaves us 3 cook county Democrat justices, and 2 Republican justices to make the decision. 

[steveTA84]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:42 PM, mab22 said:

I thought if they don’t recuse, and they go with the state, that it sets up automatic SC review?

IF they do recuse that leaves us 3 cook county Democrat justices, and 2 Republican justices to make the decision. 

Pretty much

[steveTA84]

So Pritzker just proved he’s an idiot. He credited Moms Demand Action for the gun ban being passed (their persistence and convincing legislators) and stated that’s why he had them there at the signing

 

 

Therefor, this confirms that this endorsement (GPAC aside) presents a grounded conflict of interest as well 

[mab22]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:47 AM, steveTA84 said:

So Pritzker just proved he’s an idiot. He credited Moms Demand Action for the gun ban being passed (their persistence and convincing legislators) and stated that’s why he had them there at the signing

 

 

Therefor, this confirms that this endorsement (GPAC aside) presents a grounded conflict of interest as well 

Or rubbing our noses in it. 

[steveTA84]

The IL Supreme Court justices refuse to recuse and orders saying “no” were submitted by Rochford and O’Brien 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_fd017f06-dbab-11ed-b48f-2786e27e6c20.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

 

(The Center Square) – The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a motion to disqualify two justices from hearing a challenge to the state's new gun ban over perceived conflicts of interest. The two justices also declined to recuse themselves. 

 

Before Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien were elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2022, Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave each of their campaign funds half a million dollars from both his campaign account and a revocable trust, totaling $1 million to each. The two justices also received six-figure donations out of a campaign fund controlled by Illinois House Speaker Emanual “Chris” Welch,” D-Hillside.

 

Late Friday, Rochford filed an order denying the motion. 

 

“That contributors to my campaign committee might appear as counsel or parties before this court does not require my recusal from this case,” Rochford said. “Our supreme court rules specifically allow a judicial candidate’s campaign committee to solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers.” 

 

Rochford further said previous precedent “cautioned that courts must consider whether attacks on a judge’s impartiality are ‘simply subterfuge to circumvent anticipated adverse rulings.’”

 

“Plaintiffs cast sinister aspersions that contributions to my campaign committee were made to influence the instant litigation,” Rochford said. “Plaintiffs provide no factual basis for those aspersions.”  

 

Rochford also denied making any pledge of support for gun control groups’ efforts. 

 

“Despite this broad claim, plaintiffs do not cite any instance in which I voiced such support. In fact, I have made no public statement committing or appearing to commit to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the instant proceeding that would require me to recuse or disqualify myself from this case,” Rochford said. “In sum, plaintiffs do not suggest that I am biased or partial in this matter. Rather, plaintiffs have attempted to show bias based upon inference and supposition, to create the appearance of impropriety where none exists. I have carefully considered plaintiffs’ motion, and for the reasons set forth above, I deny plaintiffs’ motion to recuse myself from this case.”

 

 

[steveTA84]

Just a reminder again lol. If they side with the defendants, who bankrolled their campaigns, they stepped in a bigger pile of poo 

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/caperton-v-massey

[steveTA84]

I like the last sentence from Stocks….

[Upholder]

Now, where did I put that popcorn.gif  ?

[steveTA84]

On 4/15/2023 at 12:52 PM, Upholder said:

Now, where did I put that popcorn.gif  ?

This is EXACTLY what I hoped would happen lol.  Recusal would have been ok, but this is 10x better and causes further problems 

[steveTA84]

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/641643741-two-new-dem-il-supreme-court-justices-refuse-to-step-aside-on-hearing-assault-weapons-ban-case
 

The decision means the court’s full 5-2 Democratic majority will hear arguments in the case when attorneys for a group of gun owners, led by Republican State Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur, face off against lawyers from the Illinois Attorney General’s office, representing Pritzker and the state’s other top Democrats, at oral arguments next month.

And the refusal by Rochford and O’Brien could also set up the potential for the plaintiffs to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The orders, issued on April 14, each by Rochford and O’Brien, respectively, came in response to a motion filed March 30 by attorneys Jerrold H. Stocks and Brian D. Eck, of the firm of Featherstun Gaumer Stocks Flynn & Eck, of Decatur.

 

The motion asserts Rochford and O’Brien cannot possibly escape the public perception that they are biased in favor of the gun ban law.

The motion points to large campaign donations Rochford and O’Brien received from the top Democrats, including Pritzker, during their election campaigns last fall. Pritzker particularly has been singled out for his donations. The billionaire governor donated $1 million each to the justices, using two different sources under his control to donate $500,000 each to the candidates, skirting caps on maximum donations established under Illinois campaign finance laws, signed by Pritzker, ostensibly to protect the integrity of judges.

“If one private contributor gave one million dollars to a campaign and had one case come before the Court, would there be any hesitation to recuse?” the plaintiffs wrote.

“Here, the source for the money yields the perception that the judiciary is a ‘rubber stamp’ for the executive and/or legislative branch.”

Further, the motion noted the judges also received strong endorsements from groups backing gun control, who also endorsed Pritzker and other Democrats for their strong support for a new state law banning “assault weapons.”

The motion noted the groups require candidates receiving their endorsements to first formally pledge to support such “assault weapons” bans.

Without recusal or disqualification, the plaintiffs assert they cannot receive a fair hearing, thus denying them their constitutional rights to due process.

Rochford and O’Brien, however, lashed out at such assertions, saying the plaintiffs can’t prove they ever actually pledged their support for the “assault weapons” ban. Further, they bristled at the assertion that Pritzker’s campaign donations purchased assurances that Pritzker would receive a ruling upholding the law, the governor’s stated desired outcome.

Rochford and O’Brien said other justices in the past have not recused themselves from hearing certain controversial cases, despite hefty campaign donations from parties involved in the cases.

Requiring them to recuse themselves now would then leave the court open to repeated recusal motions long into the future, the justices said.

While the justices’ rulings on the recusal motion settle the matter headed into the May hearing, plaintiffs have indicated such a refusal may not ultimately be the final word on recusal.

Judicial campaign contributions have long been a subject of concern for the legal community in Illinois and throughout the country.

A decade ago, the Illinois State Bar Association formally asked the Illinois Supreme Court to add a specific rule to the Code of Judicial Conduct specifically requiring judges to step aside from hearing cases in which campaign contributions create a “probability of bias.:

That request was fueled by concern over the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Caperton v Massey. In that case, the nation’s highest court determined a West Virginia Supreme Court justice had violated the due process rights of litigants before that court when he refused to step aside from hearing case, despite having received big campaign support from a businessman involved in the case.

In that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said no one needed to prove “actual bias.” Rather, it was enough, they said, that there was a “serious risk of actual bias – based on objective and reasonable perceptions – when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”

Despite the concern from the state’s legal community, the Illinois Supreme Court never adopted the rule change.

In their orders denying the recusal request, Rochford and O’Brien noted the lack of such a ruling helps to justify their refusal to step aside.

The Caulkins group’s lawyers cited the Caperton decision in saying they believe the presence of Rochford and O’Brien on the bench makes the risk of perceived bias readily apparent.

 While not explicitly threatened in their recusal motion, the focus on the Caperton decision raises the real possibility that they may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to step in, as that court did in the Caperton case, should the state high court, with Rochford and O’Brien, side with Pritzker and his fellow state defendants.

 

 

[JTHunter]

Quote

Despite the concern from the state’s legal community, the Illinois Supreme Court never adopted the rule change.

 

Of course they didn't.  That might interfere with their hegemony.

[steveTA84]

delete 

[mab22]

On 4/15/2023 at 3:34 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Of course they didn't.  That might interfere with their hegemony.

It’s always the case or excuse in Illinois, yet we need to have faith or trust in the courts……….

[Flynn]

Well this makes it stupid easy to take it to Federal court on appeal and stacks the decks in our favor of getting any unfavorable ruling overturned...

[mab22]

On 4/15/2023 at 10:15 PM, Flynn said:

Well this makes it stupid easy to take it to Federal court on appeal and stacks the decks in our favor of getting any unfavorable ruling overturned...

Keeps it tied up in the courts while the rotund one runs for Prez. Slow Joe won’t run, that leaves it open for the Tyrant to enter the running. 
What will be one of his “Key Achievements” other than trashing the state even more than it was? He “got rid of assault weapons”. 
So IL SC ties it up for, 6 months? Then there is the process to get it to the SCOTUS, 6 months to a year, assuming they hear it?
Plus the time for it to go to trial, wait for them to make a decision, probably on the Due Process part, but not 2A issue.

By the time this is all solved it’s at least 2024/25? 
If the 2A issue is resolved after the election or at least the primaries, it’s old news. 🤷‍♂️

 

This is all My uneducated guess based on how this one party state screws its citizens. 

 

[steveTA84]

Gateway Pundit picked up the story about the justices lol 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/illinois-supreme-court-denies-motion-for-recusal-in-gun-ban-challenge-for-judges-who-received-1m-each-from-anti-gun-il-gov-pritzker/

[steveTA84]

John Solomon’s outlet picked it up now too (refusal to recuse)

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/illinois-supreme-court-justices-deny-motion-recusal-gun-ban-challenge?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=twitter_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons

[steveTA84]

Now with all of this, circle back to what the official government Twitter account for the IL Supreme Court was doing to people posting about the conflicts of interest (censoring them)

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/illinois-supreme-court-twitter-account-censoring-replies-regarding-pritzker-to-justices

 

 

[steveTA84]

GSL on the news that these two refused to recuse 

https://www.gunssavelife.com/il-supreme-court-justice-turns-aside-recusal-motion-in-caulkins-gun-case-then-she-mocks-it/

[ragsbo]

On 4/16/2023 at 3:17 PM, steveTA84 said:

GSL on the news that these two refused to recuse 

https://www.gunssavelife.com/il-supreme-court-justice-turns-aside-recusal-motion-in-caulkins-gun-case-then-she-mocks-it/

Of course they won't recuse, that is why they were paid the million to get on the court and support his crap

[steveTA84]

Dan Bongino sent it (Solomon’s article) out on his network 

[mab22]

On 4/16/2023 at 6:56 PM, steveTA84 said:

Dan Bongino sent it (Solomon’s article) out on his network 

Now we need Levin to address it. 😁

[steveTA84]

DeVore’s legal assistant speaks